open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Serious Security
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (22)

Author Topic

Apertotes
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:20:00 - [301]
 

Originally by: Argenton Sayvers
I think alot of people in here will stop laughing when goons decide to run L4 missions with 5k accounts. Griefing the griefers goes both ways.


well, goons are like chinese on real world, whatever they do, it gets automatically relevant. but that doesnt mean we have to catter to anything they say

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:23:00 - [302]
 

Originally by: Fuddlesticks
Originally by: Haradgrim
Originally by: Shinigami
Edited by: Shinigami on 06/08/2008 06:12:16
CCP will be introducing trammel pretty soon. STAY TUNED!


Too late, this is it. GJ CCP, this will kill low-sec.


Whats your proof? Or basis for saying that? What's that? You don't have any?..Heres your sign


This change will further reduce the population of Low-sec because other than FW there is almost no reason to go there anymore. I don't have proof on an equal basis with the fact that you don't have proof it won't, this is due to the fact THAT IT HASNT HAPPENED YET.

Originally by: agent apple
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,

Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW


QFT


This is not the EVE I signed up for. Other than ****s & giggles, why would anyone go to low-sec anymore for anything other than FW. If they dramatically increase the profitability of low sec (preferably at the same time as reducing same in high sec), then I have no problem with the changes.... but as it stands this is a serious afront to everything I feel EVE stands for.

Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:24:00 - [303]
 

Edited by: Marlenus on 06/08/2008 17:26:57
Originally by: Khanto Thor
how many of us have accidentally shot at the stargate instead of our war target Sad


That's my biggest concern about these changes. Getting accidentally blown up by Concord because I fat-finger the less-than-perfect interface is the primary reason I BUY insurance. The vast majority of my insurance payouts in this game have been of this type, and I'm dismayed to see them going away.

I do agree that the ganking was getting out of balance, and the security status changes look about right to me, although as an aggressive salvager I was looking forward to exploring this promising career in the future. Oh, well, it's not like the universe is short of stuff to salvage.

Would it maybe be possible to add, somewhere in settings, a list of "never attack" checkboxes, to help people prevent accidents now that insurance won't cover them? I'd use a checkbox that said "Never attack a stargate" or "Never attack a station", and be happy when my fire control computer said "I'm sorry, Dave, I can't let you do that."

Edit to ad: The last time I tried to gank somebody in high sec space, I failed so miserably that they opened a conversation and apologized to me for getting me killed. True story.

Giselle Beaute
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:25:00 - [304]
 

Thanx CCP! I really like these changes. Now I only need special self-destruct cargo containers which will explode when my ship got ganked so theres no cargo left to loot.

Apertotes
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:30:00 - [305]
 

Originally by: Haradgrim
Other than ****s & giggles, why would anyone go to low-sec anymore for anything other than FW.


i agree that low sec is somehow broken. but what makes you think that anything on these changes will make it worse?

Tetsuo Hourai
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:31:00 - [306]
 

Edited by: Tetsuo Hourai on 06/08/2008 17:38:32
Originally by: Shadowsword
Disclaimer: I never suicide-ganked, I've been suicide-ganked once (surfing for pictures of barely-clad chicks while afking is Bad. Bad, I tell you). I also haul billions+ cargos in empire now and then.

EDIT: I quoted the wrong guy like an idiot :P. But what i say is still true.



This is stupid. If you are going to haul billions of isk, YOU get a scout, YOU gather intel, YOU DO SOME WORK, don't ****ing come on here and whine about how easy it is to suicide gank, then go alt+tab to see how far you've gone, autopiloting, while you typed this crap. As has been said before and I hope will become true some day, the nerf bat needs to swing both ways. It is bull**** to me that people are going to complain about their **** getting ganked after they left their macro miner (oh no!) on for 4 ****ing hours and then they were going to auto pilot it all to Jita. OH SO SAD YOU GOT GANKED! Deal with it; go afk again for another 2 days while you mine, and WHILE you're afk, why don't you jump on the forums to cry about how easy it is to high sec gank. "NERF THE SUICIDE GANKING, NERF SECURITY, BUFF CONCORD, IDUNWANNADYYYEEEE" Grow a pair, get a scout and COUNTER the high sec ganking, don't expect it NOT to happen and **** and moan when it does you pussies. If i have to put some planning, some smarts, a good setup a good scout AND enough buffer tank/dps to bring down a hauler before dying to concord, then BY JESUS CHRIST GOD DAMN YOU HAD BETTER ****ING DO THE SAME TO TRY TO KEEP YOURSELF ALIVE. If you are going to go afk and haul billions, how DARE you cry about suicide ganking and pirates. God dammit CCP, get you're heads out of your ASSES PLEEEEAAASE and go back to the hard core eve people loved and still love, as long as you don't implement the raping (not nerfing, RAPING) of the MWD, web and scram (just reduce/nerf speed on specific boats. . .duh) and this security ****. I'm done.

Ya know though, I used to be one of those people, one of those guys who complained about salvage thieving and mission ganking. I like what you have done so far CCP, I must admit (minus the drone and Eos nerfs). The inability to gank someone you are not at war with via fleet ganking is good, I like that that was stopped. But seriously, you need to grow some balls, like the macro-ers and afk haulers, and listen to the people. And yes, there is a difference between me, a capsuleer coming up on a year now, and a new player, who has no idea what they are talking about when they cry to you about the complexities of this game. But you do not turn a deaf ear to them, you turn it to me and all those like me, those who enjoyed this game for what it was, not what it is becoming. the days of Carebears and Boring PVP Online are fast approaching, unless someone in CCP heeds our calls, hears what we have to say and understands that, as players, maybe we DO know whats best for the game we play.

I'm done for real this time :P

Morgan La'Chance
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:32:00 - [307]
 

The insurance change is a good and positive change and does not in any way make this "carebear online".

The sec status changes, on the other hand...

Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:35:00 - [308]
 

Originally by: Giselle Beaute
Now I only need special self-destruct cargo containers which will explode when my ship got ganked so theres no cargo left to loot.


Hey, I kind of like that, though they should have a substantial capacity penalty.

What I'd really like is a "Giant Secured Container" (note the one-letter name difference to trap the unwary) which is secured with explosives. Armed upon contact with vacuum after ship destruction, it explodes in the face of the first pilot to approach it (possibly after offering a brief opportunity to enter a disarming password).

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:41:00 - [309]
 

Fully supported! I'm not a ganker and I've never been ganked, but I think these changes are a positive step.

Khatred
ReallyPissedOff
Guinea Pigs
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:43:00 - [310]
 

Originally by: Slim Goodbody


EVE is about killing f****ts like you and taking your cargo.


I see what you did there Mr. Spineless Laughing


J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:57:00 - [311]
 

Originally by: CCP Fear
Some answers to your questions;

These changes are on the test-server right now. So SISI is your way to go for testing this out.

Low security (0,3-0,1) is basically getting a reduction in security penalty from it's current values. So in essence, the lowest of security, just got harsher.

When we first started with this process, by brainstorming. We decided that it should not completely close off suicide ganking, but to raise the bar, make it so that it can be done, but will require some planning, thought and effort.

This is mainly focused on the no-risk no-thought ganking, that has killed thousands in the last few months.

I am in awe of those who spend weeks in planning, infiltrating, scheming and plotting against another player, just to be able to pop his freighter full of dysprosium. THAT is something i find amazing and i do not want to stop. And the reason for that, is the amount of work that went into the planning. That is cool IMO.

And that is still possible. But we want to discourage people to gank for giggles. It's just not sporting.

EVE is still harsh, and it punishes you for being careless and AFK. And this change, doesn't change that.


This is pretty much exactly what I thought when I read about these changes. Good thinking on CCP's part. I support any change that makes an element of play more challenging for everyone, while still leaving Eve the cold, harsh universe that it is.

Daelorn
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:00:00 - [312]
 

I like.

Tetsuo Hourai
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:01:00 - [313]
 

sure, suggest killing high sec suicide ganking altogether why don't you.

Zun Da
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:05:00 - [314]
 

Good changes.

Inflation caused that the costs of suicide ganks were neglectible. In the past it was quite different, battleships were very expensive and no one suicided.

Funny to see all those gankers suddenly whine. Is not now more difficult to make profit without any risk? Waaa waaa, cry me a river. Besides that, what has suicide ganking to do with pvp? Eve is supposed to be a PVP orientated game. Suicide ganking is quite the contrary.

I welcome the change, it is only the right thing to adjust things as they were used to be in the past.

However, one thing is left. Make low sec a lot more attractive! At the moment it is more or less pointless to be in low sec. Make it profitable to be there and everyone will be happy.

Kethry Avenger
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:07:00 - [315]
 

I think these changes make a lot of sense.

One quick question, so because Concord doesn't operate in lowsec, insurance will still pay out to an aggressor if he happens to bite off more than he can chew?

Tetsuo Hourai
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:17:00 - [316]
 

Originally by: Zun Da
Good changes.

Inflation caused that the costs of suicide ganks were neglectible. In the past it was quite different, battleships were very expensive and no one suicided.

Funny to see all those gankers suddenly whine. Is not now more difficult to make profit without any risk? Waaa waaa, cry me a river. Besides that, what has suicide ganking to do with pvp? Eve is supposed to be a PVP orientated game. Suicide ganking is quite the contrary.

I welcome the change, it is only the right thing to adjust things as they were used to be in the past.

However, one thing is left. Make low sec a lot more attractive! At the moment it is more or less pointless to be in low sec. Make it profitable to be there and everyone will be happy.


Yes i agree, i am not whining cause suicide ganking will be harder, it is hard already. i'm ****ed cause of the people whining about how EASY it is, when all they have to do is afk for 15 minutes and bam, they are wherever they were going. if the lure of low sec was made more. .. luring. . . then i would not have a problem, as i could kill whoever i want and make money that way.

Vincent S
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:27:00 - [317]
 

It's amazing how every single way to have fun unless you're a mission running drone gets squashed into the ground with merciless force.

CCP: The game needs less security, not more!

Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:28:00 - [318]
 

did anyone take into consideration
that the part
"Player vs. Player standing penalty"
pretty much means:
if your negative and shoot a noob
you will get less security hit
compared to when your negative
and shoot at someone whos playing for a while,
has the isk to afford getting shot at
(getting high sec status == making isk)
and maybe the knowledge to defend himself?

other then that part nice ideas.

Druadan
Syrus Speculations
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:33:00 - [319]
 

Edited by: Druadan on 06/08/2008 18:35:16
Originally by: Kethry Avenger
I think these changes make a lot of sense.

One quick question, so because Concord doesn't operate in lowsec, insurance will still pay out to an aggressor if he happens to bite off more than he can chew?


Very good question. I had assumed that insurance would still pay out in lowsec, but I've been in the game long enough to know that what is a good idea and what actually gets implemented diverge further each month. Since FW was introduced I have zero reason to go to lowsec and pirate, but should I want to whack a guy in lowsec I'd like to know that I won't be insurance-fracked for it.


Trojanman190
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:41:00 - [320]
 

When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.

J Kunjeh
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:42:00 - [321]
 

Originally by: Trojanman190
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.


Now here's someone thinking with both lobes of their brain.

Alz Shado
EverFlow
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:48:00 - [322]
 

I'm pretty sure the "no insurance for gankers" only applies when CONCORD is involved. Therefore, lowsec would be unaffected by the change.

I'm all for boosting the sec penalty in highsec, but similarly I think they should lower the sec penalty across the board for 4.0 and below. Also, 3.0 and below should have weaker gate guns so battleships aren't required just to tank them. It could actually help boost non-PVP traffic because of the less threatening ships doing the camping.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:48:00 - [323]
 

it has been easy enough to not get ganked in eve ever since I started playing and we have seen several buffs to concord in that time

lets make it so the only meaningful way to gain sec status is to kill player pirates, I mean seriously npcs whats the challenge in that Twisted Evil

don't listen to the idiots ccp please Crying or Very sad

although lower concord response numbers and maybe even despawning concord would be quite fantastic Very Happy

Letrange
Minmatar
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:50:00 - [324]
 

yay!
Surprised

DaiTengu
Gallente
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:50:00 - [325]
 

Originally by: J Kunjeh
Originally by: Trojanman190
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.


Now here's someone thinking with both lobes of their brain.


Even if you've 2 billion worth of ISK in a freighter, it's going to even out in the end. it'll take 15-20 Ravens to pop a freighter in highsec with the concord response changes, etc. Each raven is about 90-100m for the hull and mods.

This cuts in to the empire ganking profit drastically, and if I recall correctly, CCP said they didn't want to do that.

Morfane
Quam Singulari
Session Changes
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:54:00 - [326]
 

Originally by: Trojanman190
When carebears feel safer they bring more valuable loads. This only means there will be more rewards for ganking. This change is fantastic.


That was my first thought as well, but killing freighters will be so risky after the patch (1.5 b risked for a less than 50/50 chance at 4b? - ok, but not with giant sec losses) that the bears will undoubtedly just haul all their expensive bobbles in them.

THEGREAT LOBO
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:57:00 - [327]
 

Originally by: Korinn
Originally by: agent apple
I believe I can safely speak for many of us when I say,

Dear Devs, Go Back to WOW


QFT

Eve is just not the same it used to be.
I never thought i would be considering what accounts to keep and what to sell for isk. But the time is coming to drop to just one. And im not the only one thinking this.

Thanks to that guy that told me about the other sci fi mmo's coming out soon. They do look intresting, Looking forward to a lot more competition in the internet space ship market. Once people have a choice, we will be able to see if most people think ccp is taking the game in the right direction.

Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:57:00 - [328]
 

Originally by: Morfane
bobbles


Baubles? Or do carebears have, like, bobble-headed dolls stuck to their dashboards with suction cups, swaying away under the fuzzy dice?

Letrange
Minmatar
Red Horizon Inc
Cascade Imminent
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:04:00 - [329]
 

as an aside, I really don't see what the suicide ganking squad is complaining about since they can still suicide gank...

I've also noticed something rather amusing: CCP seems to operate by the "give em enough rope to hang themselves" philosophy. When someone finds an borderline exploit that their game design lets thru, they wait till it becomes obvious to everyone that it's an exploit, then wait a bit longer, and finally bring the boom down. When they do it, it's only a surprise to those who's logic goes: "They've been letting me get away with it for so long, I'll be able to get away with it forever".

CCP has stated that they want a game where actions have consequences, when they find something where actions don't have enough consequences they eventually do address the problem.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 19:09:00 - [330]
 

First off, like the problems with War Decs that were not fixed until the Privateer’s started War Decing Everybody, it took the expansion of suicide ganks to finally get CCP to look into the issue, I am glad they did.

On Security… your security rating only concerns Concord, it is Concords view of you… it makes total sense that in space with little if any Concord presence (Low Sec Space) should affect your standing with Concord at all… I hope this is carried into 0.0 space as well where there is NO concord presence. This will Increase the activity in Low sec space as you could no longer “Grind” up your security rating in null sec space. Granted, the low sec pirates will not be happy as the security grinding characters out of null sec space may be a tougher fight then the noob or carebear that wanders in for what ever reason…

It also makes sense that Concord would not treat you so harshly if you are beloved (Sec 5.0 +) and you pop a trouble maker…. And treat you harsher for shooting at someone they like…

That concord shows up faster… well, who can say… as long as there is time for that well planned gank squad to do their thing, then I am ok with it… Oh, and I am all for the stupidity tax (Suicide ganks on AFK haulers with billions as well as no insurance and a greater Security hit for Gankers that fail (to either pop the ship or to get the loot dropped)


Pages: first : previous : ... 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 ... : last (22)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only